Not true, Bakhmut cost Russians way more, and tactical retreat was done to avoid unnecessary losses.
Cost more numerically, yes. But if your opponent at Bahkmut is Wagner + armed convict meat waves, and it’s costing you regular and decently trained soldiers and mobilized personnel it is not a good trade, even at 5:1. When your opponent has a military aged male population of roughly 80 million, whilst you have at best 20 million MAMs, you need to be more selective in how you spend lives and materiel to attain objectives.
Russia has almost entirely looted their Soviet inheritance of armor, and is hobbling together any shitbox tank, BMP, or MTB with drone cages and mine rollers to throw at the front - Ukraine should be (and this year has) obliging them, grinding away at the Russians and ceding territory slowly via defense in depth. Russia cannot maintain forever, even with DPRK support, whilst China largely sits this one out and gets an economic win.
Kursk was a strategic crucial victory for many reasons
Strategic how? It was a cultural and political victory, but like many of the prestige offensives, it has cost highly skilled and well equipped troops to capture mobliks and swelled the length of the frontline that ultimately needs defending. The much theorized hope that Kursk would force Russia to slow/stop their advances in the Donbas has not played out.
It was crucial to show the Russian people that they are not invulnerable, and expose the Russian war propaganda. It was a strategically clever move, which I myself thought looked like an opportunity before they did it, as Russia apparently were leaving areas seemingly relatively poorly defended, probably because they thought a Ukrainian attack into Russia was unthinkable under the conditions of western support.
Another way it’s a good move IMO, is that for a period of time, a significant part of the war has been on Russian ground, which eases the pressure on Ukrainian land.
Admittedly I thought the effect in Russia would have been bigger, but apparently Russian propaganda is quite effective despite being downright moronic at times.
It’s very arrogant IMO to claim Ukrainian leadership is incompetent and flawed, considering they have managed to hold back a many times bigger force that had prepared for this war for years. And despite that they still hold after almost 3 years now, and it looks like Russia is the more likely to lose.
it has cost highly skilled and well equipped troops
Obviously, but how do you propose to defend against Russia without losses?
Ukraine has done extremely well, way better than anyone could reasonably have expected.
How do you imagine they could have done better? Surrender?
It was crucial to show the Russian people that they are not invulnerable, and expose the Russian war propaganda… Admittedly I thought the effect in Russia would have been bigger, but apparently Russian propaganda is quite effective
That is because you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship average Russians have with their state. Russians know their leadership is corrupt, that Moscow takes the loot and leaves dirt for the provinces, that corruption is rife, and that they are largely on their own. As a nation with conscription, many get their taste of the state either via (the widespread practice) of bribing a doctor/officer to deem you unfit for service, or via the brutal hazing system inside the military - at age 18.
This lesson of entrenched corruption is reinforced again in later life, over and over, until the idea of generals or politicians getting caught with huge dachas or suitcases of money is normalized - expected even.
Why don’t they speak up or rebel? Because political engagement has proven to routinely be either controlled opposition kept impotent by the state, elections are overtly rigged - or like Navalny and many before him, personal involvement in a direct challenge is dangerous to your survival. Or they go Grozny, Bucha, Ossetia, etc on you if your locale tries to breakaway from Russian dominationz
Russia apparently were leaving areas seemingly relatively poorly defended, probably because they thought a Ukrainian attack into Russia was unthinkable under the conditions of western support.
What were Freedom of Russia raids then? What is the “banditry” Putin claimed as a rationale for the renewed offensive in the north in 2023-2024? The border was known as porous and lightly defended, but a Ukrainian counter-invasion was unseen because… it didn’t make sense. Even as a bargaining chip in the inevitable negotiated end, Russia still holds the big cards and they’re sympathetic as the whole of their strategic hand. The Donbas enables the land bridge to Crimea, Crimea gives the Black Sea Fleet an uncontested route in/out of the Sea of Azov, all of which keeps the mineral loot in the Donbas. The Russians have no wiggle room to negotiate territory, and keep their goals intact. And besides, we all saw how Russia honored the Minsk agreement with Ukraine, why negotiate in good faith with a bad actor?
Another way it’s a good move IMO, is that for a period of time, a significant part of the war has been on Russian ground, which eases the pressure on Ukrainian land.
Yeah, how’s that working out chief? The Donbas is still slowly eroding, and those Strykers, Leopards, and Bradleys aren’t coming back. Nor are the well trained soldiers that were sent in the initial Kursk push.
It’s very arrogant IMO to claim Ukrainian leadership is incompetent and flawed
I didn’t, though I recognize the 3rd party political optics of “selling” the war/victory to western backers has curbed their choices, the role of politics on the battlefield has been hobbling. The prolonged defense of Bahkmut is a perfect example - though it may have directly lead to the Wagner coup and Putin further isolating and neutering his generals, that is an unforeseen boon, not a planned outcome. The propaganda/dick measuring of that city was needless for at least the last two months, given that Chasiv Yar is the actual linchpin on terrain and logistical reasons.
considering they have managed to hold back a many times bigger force that had prepared for this war for years. And despite that they still hold after almost 3 years now, and it looks like Russia is the more likely to lose.
Which will be lauded in history, probably for centuries. As they should be, to grow from of the ashes of Yanukovic’s puppet leadership and stand tall was, and is incredible. Zelenskyy gets his deserved flowers but Hostomel doesn’t get enough credit imo, that was where it was really blunted in the first hours.
Obviously, but how do you propose to defend against Russia without losses? Ukraine has done extremely well, way better than anyone could reasonably have expected. How do you imagine they could have done better? Surrender?
Eyyy there it is. Any criticism is defeatism/bad faith.
I’m an internet commenter, not someone read in on US and Ukrainian state secrets. I don’t know if the Kharkiv offensive could have gone far further based on Russian strength or Ukrainian material on hand from allies, but I can see that the rear defenses were neglected after that ground was won because of over optimism. Same in Avdiivka last year, or the other example I gave of political and/or propaganda decisions instead of realism.
Ultimately it’s our fault for not supplying everything, everywhere, all at once, but again - in the early days the US intelligence community felt that the actual use of nukes was a coin flip. Push Putin too hard, too fast and he’ll actually fall back on the trump card.
Well I don’t really disagree with anything you write here, but you must be aware that much of what you claim now, is contradictory to the article I criticized in many ways.
It’s very arrogant IMO to claim Ukrainian leadership is incompetent and flawed
I didn’t, though
But this was the very first comment from the article I quoted:
Ukraine’s professional military core eroded, replaced by mobilized teachers, drivers, farmers, and IT workers.
That’s very demeaning of the Ukrtainian army and leadership.
But now you apparently agree the criticism in the article is exaggerated?
So what are we actually disagreeing on?
The article is trash, and you show nothing to contradict that, seems like you just had a knee jerk reaction.
Ukraine’s professional military core eroded, replaced by mobilized teachers, drivers, farmers, and IT workers.
That’s very demeaning of the Ukrtainian army and leadership. But now you apparently agree the criticism in the article is exaggerated?
I mean, it’s not. Stop just looking at the ‘sexy’ units like 3rd Assault or the Davinci Wolves and pay attention to the regular guys in the trenches or manning the somewhat calm areas of the line - like the TDF. Middle aged men who were welders, bus drivers, famers, store clerks, etc wearing 2014 era digicam uniforms often still holding AK-74s, in poorly built fighting positions, with trash everywhere in the open - why? Poor supply and poor leadership. If you’re not fighting you should be sleeping or digging/improving your FP. Well trained and disciplined troops with NCOs on the line would not permit that.
So what are we actually disagreeing on? The article is trash, and you show nothing to contradict that, seems like you just had a knee jerk reaction.
The article (though heavily needing citation throughout) mostly fits with the informal conversation you can hear from the smaller Telegram channels run by actual soldiers, instead of PR arms of the state/brigades; we are tired of ineffective command treating our lives callously to cover their own failures/ineptitude. And that there is no exit from frontline except via death, crippling injury, or reassignment for the lucky.
This line was the kicker for me from the article, and is exactly the kind of blind hope that I initially started this conversation criticizing:
This fed a dangerous optimism about the upcoming counteroffensive – some even predicted it would end the war and push Russian forces out of Crimea.
Reality proved very different. When these ambitious goals proved impossible, the narrative had to change. Leaders started talking about capturing Tokmak instead – a much more modest objective.
This moment marked a turning point in Western support.
Emphasis mine. The meming of invincible Ukraine against fleeing Russians was foolish, overbuilt expectations, and when the 2023 counteroffensive fell on the Surovikin line, Western leaders had a much harder time selling support of the war domestically as an immediately winnable fight, instead of the protracted attritional conflict of industrial, financial, and manpower capacity that it is.
Invading a country is way way harder. You need absolutely definitive victories Russia isn’t getting that
Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan/Iraq. It’s far easier to defend your home than go attack someone else’s. Russia’s moral is shit and while they have more bodies, I’d rather have ten motivated fighters than a hundred miserable fuckers.
I generally don’t pick apart someone when they’re mostly correct lol
Yes, the Ukrainians didn’t say “not one step backwards, Stalingrad Bahkmut must hold” but let’s be real. They should have retreated to Chasiv Yar and other better defensive positions a lot sooner.
Maybe you are right, there was a lot of debate about it already at the time. They knew they would lose it, so I considered it an exploit of a good defensive position for as long as possible.
Maybe they stayed a bit too long, but to be fair, we don’t see all the things they have to take into consideration. Maybe you are right that they could have done better. But they definitely also could have done a lot worse.
Bahkmut could have been optimized further but bahkmut was great. Not only it broke russians stationed there it also ended with the pie man almost couping moscow. Putin also showed russia there are 3 year old girls braver than him by fleeing and letting a country seen as the prison bitch solve russian inner affairs.
After that wagner was done for, russian presence in Syria collapsed and they are getting constantly wiped out everywhere they are. Putin has been weakened considerably.
Sadly memory holing has begun, people are forgetting how humiliating it was for russia.
Cost more numerically, yes. But if your opponent at Bahkmut is Wagner + armed convict meat waves, and it’s costing you regular and decently trained soldiers and mobilized personnel it is not a good trade, even at 5:1. When your opponent has a military aged male population of roughly 80 million, whilst you have at best 20 million MAMs, you need to be more selective in how you spend lives and materiel to attain objectives. Russia has almost entirely looted their Soviet inheritance of armor, and is hobbling together any shitbox tank, BMP, or MTB with drone cages and mine rollers to throw at the front - Ukraine should be (and this year has) obliging them, grinding away at the Russians and ceding territory slowly via defense in depth. Russia cannot maintain forever, even with DPRK support, whilst China largely sits this one out and gets an economic win.
Strategic how? It was a cultural and political victory, but like many of the prestige offensives, it has cost highly skilled and well equipped troops to capture mobliks and swelled the length of the frontline that ultimately needs defending. The much theorized hope that Kursk would force Russia to slow/stop their advances in the Donbas has not played out.
It was crucial to show the Russian people that they are not invulnerable, and expose the Russian war propaganda. It was a strategically clever move, which I myself thought looked like an opportunity before they did it, as Russia apparently were leaving areas seemingly relatively poorly defended, probably because they thought a Ukrainian attack into Russia was unthinkable under the conditions of western support.
Another way it’s a good move IMO, is that for a period of time, a significant part of the war has been on Russian ground, which eases the pressure on Ukrainian land.
Admittedly I thought the effect in Russia would have been bigger, but apparently Russian propaganda is quite effective despite being downright moronic at times.
It’s very arrogant IMO to claim Ukrainian leadership is incompetent and flawed, considering they have managed to hold back a many times bigger force that had prepared for this war for years. And despite that they still hold after almost 3 years now, and it looks like Russia is the more likely to lose.
Obviously, but how do you propose to defend against Russia without losses?
Ukraine has done extremely well, way better than anyone could reasonably have expected.
How do you imagine they could have done better? Surrender?
That is because you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship average Russians have with their state. Russians know their leadership is corrupt, that Moscow takes the loot and leaves dirt for the provinces, that corruption is rife, and that they are largely on their own. As a nation with conscription, many get their taste of the state either via (the widespread practice) of bribing a doctor/officer to deem you unfit for service, or via the brutal hazing system inside the military - at age 18.
This lesson of entrenched corruption is reinforced again in later life, over and over, until the idea of generals or politicians getting caught with huge dachas or suitcases of money is normalized - expected even. Why don’t they speak up or rebel? Because political engagement has proven to routinely be either controlled opposition kept impotent by the state, elections are overtly rigged - or like Navalny and many before him, personal involvement in a direct challenge is dangerous to your survival. Or they go Grozny, Bucha, Ossetia, etc on you if your locale tries to breakaway from Russian dominationz
What were Freedom of Russia raids then? What is the “banditry” Putin claimed as a rationale for the renewed offensive in the north in 2023-2024? The border was known as porous and lightly defended, but a Ukrainian counter-invasion was unseen because… it didn’t make sense. Even as a bargaining chip in the inevitable negotiated end, Russia still holds the big cards and they’re sympathetic as the whole of their strategic hand. The Donbas enables the land bridge to Crimea, Crimea gives the Black Sea Fleet an uncontested route in/out of the Sea of Azov, all of which keeps the mineral loot in the Donbas. The Russians have no wiggle room to negotiate territory, and keep their goals intact. And besides, we all saw how Russia honored the Minsk agreement with Ukraine, why negotiate in good faith with a bad actor?
Yeah, how’s that working out chief? The Donbas is still slowly eroding, and those Strykers, Leopards, and Bradleys aren’t coming back. Nor are the well trained soldiers that were sent in the initial Kursk push.
I didn’t, though I recognize the 3rd party political optics of “selling” the war/victory to western backers has curbed their choices, the role of politics on the battlefield has been hobbling. The prolonged defense of Bahkmut is a perfect example - though it may have directly lead to the Wagner coup and Putin further isolating and neutering his generals, that is an unforeseen boon, not a planned outcome. The propaganda/dick measuring of that city was needless for at least the last two months, given that Chasiv Yar is the actual linchpin on terrain and logistical reasons.
Which will be lauded in history, probably for centuries. As they should be, to grow from of the ashes of Yanukovic’s puppet leadership and stand tall was, and is incredible. Zelenskyy gets his deserved flowers but Hostomel doesn’t get enough credit imo, that was where it was really blunted in the first hours.
Eyyy there it is. Any criticism is defeatism/bad faith.
I’m an internet commenter, not someone read in on US and Ukrainian state secrets. I don’t know if the Kharkiv offensive could have gone far further based on Russian strength or Ukrainian material on hand from allies, but I can see that the rear defenses were neglected after that ground was won because of over optimism. Same in Avdiivka last year, or the other example I gave of political and/or propaganda decisions instead of realism.
Ultimately it’s our fault for not supplying everything, everywhere, all at once, but again - in the early days the US intelligence community felt that the actual use of nukes was a coin flip. Push Putin too hard, too fast and he’ll actually fall back on the trump card.
Well I don’t really disagree with anything you write here, but you must be aware that much of what you claim now, is contradictory to the article I criticized in many ways.
But this was the very first comment from the article I quoted:
That’s very demeaning of the Ukrtainian army and leadership.
But now you apparently agree the criticism in the article is exaggerated?
So what are we actually disagreeing on?
The article is trash, and you show nothing to contradict that, seems like you just had a knee jerk reaction.
I mean, it’s not. Stop just looking at the ‘sexy’ units like 3rd Assault or the Davinci Wolves and pay attention to the regular guys in the trenches or manning the somewhat calm areas of the line - like the TDF. Middle aged men who were welders, bus drivers, famers, store clerks, etc wearing 2014 era digicam uniforms often still holding AK-74s, in poorly built fighting positions, with trash everywhere in the open - why? Poor supply and poor leadership. If you’re not fighting you should be sleeping or digging/improving your FP. Well trained and disciplined troops with NCOs on the line would not permit that.
The article (though heavily needing citation throughout) mostly fits with the informal conversation you can hear from the smaller Telegram channels run by actual soldiers, instead of PR arms of the state/brigades; we are tired of ineffective command treating our lives callously to cover their own failures/ineptitude. And that there is no exit from frontline except via death, crippling injury, or reassignment for the lucky.
This line was the kicker for me from the article, and is exactly the kind of blind hope that I initially started this conversation criticizing:
Emphasis mine. The meming of invincible Ukraine against fleeing Russians was foolish, overbuilt expectations, and when the 2023 counteroffensive fell on the Surovikin line, Western leaders had a much harder time selling support of the war domestically as an immediately winnable fight, instead of the protracted attritional conflict of industrial, financial, and manpower capacity that it is.
This entire thread has been very informative, thank you for this
Invading a country is way way harder. You need absolutely definitive victories Russia isn’t getting that
Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan/Iraq. It’s far easier to defend your home than go attack someone else’s. Russia’s moral is shit and while they have more bodies, I’d rather have ten motivated fighters than a hundred miserable fuckers.
Seems you somehow skipped the 2nd part:
I generally don’t pick apart someone when they’re mostly correct lol
Yes, the Ukrainians didn’t say “not one step backwards,
StalingradBahkmut must hold” but let’s be real. They should have retreated to Chasiv Yar and other better defensive positions a lot sooner.Maybe you are right, there was a lot of debate about it already at the time. They knew they would lose it, so I considered it an exploit of a good defensive position for as long as possible.
Maybe they stayed a bit too long, but to be fair, we don’t see all the things they have to take into consideration. Maybe you are right that they could have done better. But they definitely also could have done a lot worse.
Bahkmut could have been optimized further but bahkmut was great. Not only it broke russians stationed there it also ended with the pie man almost couping moscow. Putin also showed russia there are 3 year old girls braver than him by fleeing and letting a country seen as the prison bitch solve russian inner affairs.
After that wagner was done for, russian presence in Syria collapsed and they are getting constantly wiped out everywhere they are. Putin has been weakened considerably. Sadly memory holing has begun, people are forgetting how humiliating it was for russia.